Is Hillary Done?

[Yota]

I don't think she's done. Do you?

I do think reality is hitting her pretty hard. I think she believed she'd get the nomination in a walk although, to be honest, that could easily still happen since 96% of the states have yet to vote.

People are writing her off, but I think it's too soon - even after she loses in NH.

If you think she really is done as a prez candidate, why?

[OrangeCrush]

done
Conservatives hate her and libs are scared her negatives are too great to win the general

[CLYDE]

done before she even started, Why? cause everybody knows shes a she-snake

[Steve]

Yes, the reality that she's NOT the "inevitability candidate" is hitting her way hard. But, if any candidate is "done" after two of the least populated states in the U.S., one of which didn't even vote, weigh in, our system is totally fawked. I think the press is making much more out of this than it deserves.

And what, exactly, is Obama gonna "change?" Listen to any of his recent stump speeches and he uses the word over and over and over and... but never says what he'll change, how he'll do it, or what he'll change it to. Yet the sheeple are flocking to him because he keeps using that word. :shrug:

[denverd0n]

I don't think she's "done" yet, but she is definitely on the ropes. I saw Dick Morris (former Clinton political advisor) the other night and I thought it was interesting that he thought she is getting desperate and will probably play "the race card" next.

That is, in his opinion, she won't come out and say it in so many words (because that would be political suicide), but she will start making veiled comments that are intended to get people thinking that the nation is not ready to elect a black president. Of course, by extension, the message will be that they should support her.

Personally, I think that can backfire on two levels. First off, obviously, if she is interpreted in ANY way as actually saying that Obama is not a good candidate because of his race then her political career is over! Secondly, though, if the nation is not ready to elect a black candidate then what makes her think the nation is ready to elect a woman? If she DOES succeed in very subtly getting people to think that Obama is not electable, they may just as well also think that SHE is not electable!

In any case, should be an interesting next several weeks.

[team D.A.T.A.]

I like Huckleberry and Obama on one ticket. No, really I do. We need change. Regardless of what it is. Everything in government needs changed. All government is failing all of us. What isn't there to change? What is working for all Americans?

[Steve]

I like Huckleberry and Obama on one ticket. No, really I do.

I can't even imagine what would happen to taxes with that pair "leading" us. :rolleyes:

[JKTODD]

I'm surprised at how McCain is coming on.

[Oscar]

I think she is in for an up hill battle. Frankly both are about the same for experience both are relatively new to the senate so she can't play that card. She can't play the racist card for all the reason mentioned already. I think people see her with no personality to lead. She has allot of baggage with Clinton name. I frankly don't trust her because of things in her past in Arkansas. Also it really bothered me that she moves to New York just to get elected to the senate why couldn't she do that in her home state. I know not really hard reason but these thing just make me leery of her.

[Steve]

20 straight years with either a Clinton or Bush in the White House is enough.

[Oscar]

I still wish Colin Powell would run. Something about both parties wanting him on their ticket spoke volumes to me.

[JKTODD]

20 straight years with either a Clinton or Bush in the White House is enough.

Good point.

[Yota]

I think Dick Morris is wrong about her playing the "race" card just as he (and lots of others) was wrong about Hillary's inevitability as the Dem nominee.

I don't really think there is a "race card" to be played anyway. In fact, the race card is more likely to be played by Obama's surrogates if he starts losing. I mean what form would Hillary's 'race card' take? I just don't see it. If anyone has failed to understand that Obama is black that person is too stupid to be able to figure out how to vote anyway. :)



.

[JKTODD]

I still wish Colin Powell would run. Something about both parties wanting him on their ticket spoke volumes to me.

X2-but he probably doesn't want the aggravation.

[Yota]

I still wish Colin Powell would run. Something about both parties wanting him on their ticket spoke volumes to me.

He couldn't get either party's nomination, unfortunately. He would end up as a third-party spoiler.

McCain is just a little to the right of Powell and McCain's not likely to get the Republican nomination. Hillary is a little to the left of Powell and Hillary's not likely to get the Dem nomination.

[denverd0n]

I still wish Colin Powell would run.
I used to think that, too. Then I attended a dinner where he was the keynote speaker. I realized that he is too much of a military man to make a good president. His approach is 1) identify the problem, 2) amass resources, 3) lay out a plan, 4) attack the problem until it is resolved.

That works great in the private sector, and it is the way the military should function. But the plain fact is that the job of president just doesn't work that way. For one thing, the president simply does not have anywhere near that much control. The real control is in the hands of Congress, and the president has to persuade, cajole, lobby, and harangue to get them to do what he wants. And even then, he never quite gets EVERYTHING he wants.

I don't think Powell wants the job because I think he knows that he would just get WAAAAAY too frustrated trying to deal with Congress. He would not be effective, because he could not count on things happening the way he wants them to. Frankly, I think that's why he resigned as Sec'y of State. He wants the kind of job where he can give an order and expect it to be carried out. The job of president is just nothing at all like that.

[Oscar]

Probably but my point is I was thinking because both parties wanted him I think he would be effective working both sides of the aisle. And some of our best persidents have been military officers.

[Yota]

I think he'd be too liberal for the Repubs and too conservative for the Dems.

Then again, he'd probably not be any more liberal than Bush has been on things like entitlement spending and immigration.

[denverd0n]

And some of our best persidents have been military officers.
Other than Washington I can't think of any. Eisenhower wasn't bad, I guess, but I certainly wouldn't rank him among our "best."

Roosevelt (Teddy, not FDR!) wasn't bad either. Maybe could be considered among the "best." Still, he wasn't a career military man. He was in just long enough to have a grand adventure and gain some recognition, and then he got out. And he was one of those who got a commission mainly by virtue of bringing along a bunch of volunteers with him. He was never really trained to be an officer.

[jnschwie]

OBVIOUSLY, I wasn't around for him, however.... let's explore this further.

Learn me. :D

Other than Washington I can't think of any. Eisenhower wasn't bad, I guess, but I certainly wouldn't rank him among our "best."

My take on Ike was that he gave us interstates while ruling peacefully during a prosperous time. It was the very beginning of the cold war (right?), and American society, in general, lived well.

I've never understood why Kennedy's more turbulent era was dubbed "Camelot" when Ike's time seemed more appropriate for such a moniker.

:confused: :beer:

[sames]

I don't think she is done. She will not give up easily. If she still is in the fight after super Tuesday it will get ugly. Obama has the most to loose if it gets nasty. He has acquired an image that can't get much better and will probably get tarnished if the Clinton machine has their way. Surprisingly from what I have read about Barack, he is not above dirty politics either so it should be an interesting battle.

Here's some background on Obama's past political tactics.


Obama had returned to Chicago and practiced civil rights law for 3 years, when he spied an opportunity to run for the state senate. A longtime, widely-revered matron of the civil rights movement named Alice Palmer had held the seat for a number of years, but she announced that she wanted to run for Congress. So, Obama seized the opportunity and proclaimed his intention to run for Alice's open seat.

Well, Alice lost the congressional race and decided that she wanted to hang onto that hard-won state senate seat. Most of the community leaders tried to persuade Obama to withdraw and wait his turn; he was a newcomer after all.

Instead Obama performed his first real act of political jujitsu. He sent his aides to the courthouse to carefully examine all of Alice Palmer's signatures to see if enough could be disallowed to knock her off the ballot altogether. And indeed, some of Alice's signatures were fake. The aides also found enough other fake signatures on opponents' ballot initiatives to knock them off the ballot as well.

By the time Barack Obama walked handily into his state senate seat, everyone there knew him as "the man who knocked off Alice Palmer." Quite a feat indeed for the newcomer, the young whippersnapper with the odd name.

[denverd0n]

I've never understood why Kennedy's more turbulent era was dubbed "Camelot" when Ike's time seemed more appropriate for such a moniker.
I can certainly agree with that. I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but I would NEVER consider Kennedy as one of our "best" presidents!

[Oscar]

Oh I think Kennedy wasn't to bad of Pres. I didn't say necessarily career officers but those who truly served worked out fairly well.

[jnschwie]

I can certainly agree with that. I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but I would NEVER consider Kennedy as one of our "best" presidents!

Oh, no. Me neither. I didn't mean to imply that.

It just seemed like Ike sailed some pretty smooth waters (which he deserved after all he was a part of 1 decade earlier). I don't recall my history as well as I should, but it seems Ike did an adequate job, gave us stuff, and did little to make things worse (ie. FDR).

:)

[Steve]

I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but I would NEVER consider Kennedy as one of our "best" presidents!

I wouldn't disagree with you, he was mediocre at best IMO.

[denverd0n]

Oh I think Kennedy wasn't to bad of Pres.
I don't think he was too bad of a president either. I just wouldn't ever rank him among the "best."

[PuebloXJ]

I like Huckleberry and Obama on one ticket. No, really I do. We need change. Regardless of what it is. Everything in government needs changed. All government is failing all of us. What isn't there to change? What is working for all Americans?

If you want real change why not vote Libertarian?

[sames]

I can certainly agree with that. I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but I would NEVER consider Kennedy as one of our "best" presidents!

I agree with you. Below are some thoughts for the romantic Dems:

Kennedy was a hawk. He did a good job handling the missile thing (made Ruskies believe he would go to war) and he pushed for lower taxes. Current Dems have very little in common with JFK. IMHO if he were alive today he would feel pretty comfortable will the Zell Miller crowd. Hell he probably would have been one of Reagan's best buds.

[Steve]

If you want real change why not vote Libertarian?

I seriously thought about it. Then I did some research on their web site about their official platform. No thanks.

[jnschwie]

Lord knows he wouldn't have gotten along with Clinton, what with all the womanizing competition.

[Oscar]

Librarians are boring

[Camp]

Lord knows he wouldn't have gotten along with Clinton, what with all the womanizing competition.

Maybe we should be looking for single people to elect. Hell, if you had that kind of power and influence, wouldn't you abuse is maybe just a little? :D






I never thought that Hilliary had a chance. I think it is only going down hill for her from here. I believe that there are too many people out there that fear her, or are two gender based and couldn't handle a woman president that the turn out for election day would be higher than normal historically due to people voting against her, had she be on the ballot.

[sames]

"Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings. They did it by killing all those who opposed them."

Camp, that is a great sig line

[denverd0n]

Then I did some research on their web site about their official platform. No thanks.
Have you seen the official platform of either the Democrats or the Republicans? Do you really agree with EVERYTHING that either one of them say?

I find something to disagree with in ALL of the party platforms. The thing about the Libertarian platform is that most of the really disagreeable stuff would never pass Congress anyway. With the Democrats and Republicans that is not so much the case!

[jnschwie]

Maybe we should be looking for single people to elect. Hell, if you had that kind of power and influence, wouldn't you abuse is maybe just a little? :D


Pfft. No.
I'd abuse it a lot.


I'd probably burn through my three secret service under the table kills inside of my first year. :D


My poor wife. :laughing:


J/K.


Maybe.

[team D.A.T.A.]

If you want real change why not vote Libertarian?

I don't consider the candidate worthy. Nor do I believe he could or would cause change. I don't think changing parties will change anything. It is the man and his ideas.

[Steve]

Have you seen the official platform of either the Democrats or the Republicans? Do you really agree with EVERYTHING that either one of them say?

Nope, definitely don't agree with everything in either of their official platforms either.

I find something to disagree with in ALL of the party platforms. The thing about the Libertarian platform is that most of the really disagreeable stuff would never pass Congress anyway. With the Democrats and Republicans that is not so much the case!

Good point, but how much time would a Libertarian Prez waste on stupid stuff that wouldn't pass Congress, while neglecting really important stuff? I haven't yet seen a Libertarian candidate who I think is a good leader either, which is what's really needed for Prez. :shrug:

IMO we need a Centrist Party as a third party instead of the Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc. :)

[team D.A.T.A.]

I can't even imagine what would happen to taxes with that pair "leading" us. :rolleyes:


I love Huckleberry's tax plan. It rocks. It makes sense. It's fair.

[denverd0n]

...how much time would a Libertarian Prez waste on stupid stuff that wouldn't pass Congress, while neglecting really important stuff?
Well, see, in general my attitude is that the more time the president and Congress waste not getting anything done the better off we are! I think gridlock is just about the best thing that the American public has going for it!

When I get REALLY scared is when they agree on things and start passing new laws left and right!

[Pilot]

I think Dick Morris is wrong about her playing the "race" card

Hillary just recently stated that Obama was no Martin Luther King. Sigh....

[denverd0n]

Hillary just recently stated that Obama was no Martin Luther King. Sigh....
That's exactly the kind of comment that Morris was talking about when he mentioned "the race card."

[Waifer2112]

No surprise to me. She'll do whatever it takes to keep power. I don't like her, and I don't trust her.

AND, it has NOTHING to do with her being a woman. I've worked for women for almost 9 years now, and don't have a problem with women leading. It has to do with HER!

[Renegade_Jeeper]

well hell like all the liberals are preaching about iraq she better "Cut and Run" as she still has time

[jnschwie]

Until her little crying episode (well, and a couple of other complaints of hers fairly recently), I really had her pegged as the "tough guy" of the democratic bunch.

Now that she lost that, she is of far less interest, IMHO.

[Camp]

No surprise to me. She'll do whatever it takes to keep power. I don't like her, and I don't trust her.

AND, it has NOTHING to do with her being a woman. I've worked for women for almost 9 years now, and don't have a problem with women leading. It has to do with HER!


I didn't mean to imply that everyone has trouble dealing with women as leaders, just that there are those out there that will. Hopefully my comments wheren't too broad.

[Oscar]

heheyou said broad

[Waifer2112]

Whenever I see/hear the word "broad", I always think of "the fat broad" from the B.C. comic strip!

[Renegade_Jeeper]

she would prob end up on the back of a milk carton as our country gets kidnapped by terrioist if she were to actually beat obama and whoever makes it on the republican side im going for guliani

[Waifer2112]

she would prob end up on the back of a milk carton as our country gets kidnapped by terrioist if she were to actually beat obama and whoever makes it on the republican side im going for guliani

See? Ads DO work!!!

[Renegade_Jeeper]

i been backing him since long before he said he would run

[CLYDE]

Other than Washington I can't think of any. Eisenhower wasn't bad, I guess, but I certainly wouldn't rank him among our "best."

Roosevelt (Teddy, not FDR!) wasn't bad either. Maybe could be considered among the "best." Still, he wasn't a career military man. He was in just long enough to have a grand adventure and gain some recognition, and then he got out. And he was one of those who got a commission mainly by virtue of bringing along a bunch of volunteers with him. He was never really trained to be an officer. Uh your forgetting a whole bunch that were military, and fought in wars of one kind or another. I knew some of these, but even I had to go dig up a list of all that served. There are some very good presidents in this list, and a couple that wernt so good too, like Andrew Johnson. But all served.

The following are presidents that fought in wars, and the name of the war that they fought in:

George Washington - Commander in Chief of Continental Army during the American Revolution.
James Monroe - served in American Revolution
Andrew Jackson - American Revolution, War of 1812, First Seminole War
William Henry Harrison - Indian wars in the NW territory, War of 1812
John Tyler - War of 1812
Zachary Taylor - War of 1812, Black Hawk, Second Seminole, and Mexican wars
Franklin Pierce - Mexican War
James Buchanan - War of 1812
Abraham Lincoln - Black Hawk War
Andrew Johnson - Civil War
Ulysses Grant - Mexican War, Civil War
Rutherford Hayes - Civil War
James Garfield - Civil War
Chester Arthur - Civil War
Benjamin Harrison - Civil War
William McKinley - Civil War
Theodore Roosevelt - Spanish-American War
Harry Truman - WWI
Dwight Eisenhower - WWII General
John Kennedy - WWII
Lyndon Johnson - WWII
Richard Nixon - WWII
Gerald Ford - WWII
Ronald Reagan - WWII
Gorge Bush - WWII

They were all heroes.
________________________________________________________________

The following is a list of Presidents that were in the military but did not fight in any war:

James Madison
James Polk
Millard Fillmore
Jimmy Carter
George W. Bush

[Steve]

See? Ads DO work!!!

:lmao:

[CLYDE]

If you want real change why not vote Libertarian?
Because true libetarians are all anarchists, and we dont want that either, The only reason Ron Paul was with them for so long was that the repubs, refused to take him seriously, something they are probably regretting now :)

[Renegade_Jeeper]

i will never support ron paul even if i was held at gun point and told i would die if i didn't

[denverd0n]

Because true libetarians are all anarchists...
That is simply not true. Not even close. It is a common accusation of those who do not understand libertarianism, but it is not true.

[CLYDE]

I have a greast friend of mine that is a lib, and he sends out stuff all the time from the lib party sites, I have read enough to see that they have nothing I am interested in, other than the stuff he used to send from Paul, I just cannot take them seriously. Its all a personal preference thing, and they are not in line with my own beliefs.

[Oscar]

Librains are anachists? I thought they were book worms.

[Gags]

I can't even imagine what would happen to taxes with that pair "leading" us. :rolleyes:

Obama wants middle class tax breaks and remove breaks for the super wealthy.

Obama has my support 100%.

[Gags]

I love Huckleberry's tax plan. It rocks. It makes sense. It's fair.

Damn, I'm on your side on this completely.

[PuebloXJ]

I knew my Libetarian note would stir the pot. Seriously though, this thread seems to be leaning Democrat, what about Mitt Romney?

[CLYDE]

What about him?? I will vote for him, if he gets the nomination, but he sure isnt my first choice for our candidate.

[Renegade_Jeeper]

shit im not even gonna try now

[Pilot]

what about Mitt Romney?


I think he's electable. Yeah, he's a Ken doll, but he seems like a decent guy, intelligent, good businessman, got elected in one of the most liberal states in the country. I think he could beat Obama or Hitlary.

[CLYDE]

shit im not even gonna try nowLol, not like anyone is going to decide their choices from this thread anyway:flipoff2: We all pretty much know who we would like to see at this point, and I think the consensus is, it aint gonna be cliton.

[PuebloXJ]

What about him?? I will vote for him, if he gets the nomination, but he sure isnt my first choice for our candidate.

In the long run he's got the best shot in beating the Dem's.

[Gags]

I think he's electable. Yeah, he's a Ken doll, but he seems like a decent guy, intelligent, good businessman, got elected in one of the most liberal states in the country. I think he could beat Obama or Hitlary.

I'd be surprised if Mitt could pull the Evangelical votes which most Republicans need. If he beat Obama I don't think it would be because of the issues.

[Steve]

Obama wants middle class tax breaks and remove breaks for the super wealthy.

So you're in favor of using the federal tax system to redistribute wealth? Okay, got it. I'm not.

[Gags]

So you're in favor of using the federal tax system to redistribute wealth? Okay, got it. I'm not.

Not at all. Not how I understood it. What I do understand is that some ultra wealthy people and huge companies get breaks that the middle class citizen does not get. They can afford the lawyers and accountants to ease that even more.

I'm not saying steal from the rich and give to the poor. I'm saying a more fair tax system where the middle class doesn't get screwed while the people who can afford it get a pass.

[Steve]

I'm not saying steal from the rich and give to the poor. I'm saying a more fair tax system where the middle class doesn't get screwed while the people who can afford it get a pass.

Do you really, honestly, believe that the "middle class" gets "screwed" on taxes and the "rich" "get a pass?" Wow. Look up stats about how much of the total federal tax burden the highest earners pay v. the middle class or the poor. It's so skewed already that the top 10% of incomes pay more than 50% of the taxes.

Anything you do to further reduce taxes on the middle class and increase them on the rich is doing exactly what you say you don't want; taking from the rich to give to the poor.

And surely you know that taxes on corporations are taxes on all of us. The companies don't pay them, we do.

[jnschwie]

Not at all. Not how I understood it. What I do understand is that some ultra wealthy people and huge companies get breaks that the middle class citizen does not get. They can afford the lawyers and accountants to ease that even more.

I'm not saying steal from the rich and give to the poor. I'm saying a more fair tax system where the middle class doesn't get screwed while the people who can afford it get a pass.

That's BS.

The wealthy pay more taxes than anyone. THAT is unfair.

[jnschwie]

And surely you know that taxes on corporations are taxes on all of us. The companies don't pay them, we do.

Twice, in many cases. :mad:

Both as shareholders and again as consumers.

[Gags]

Do you really, honestly, believe that the "middle class" gets "screwed" on taxes and the "rich" "get a pass?" Wow. Look up stats about how much of the total federal tax burden the highest earners pay v. the middle class or the poor. It's so skewed already that the top 10% of incomes pay more than 50% of the taxes.

Anything you do to further reduce taxes on the middle class and increase them on the rich is doing exactly what you say you don't want; taking from the rich to give to the poor.

And surely you know that taxes on corporations are taxes on all of us. The companies don't pay them, we do.

Sorry, my point is that the tax system needs attention. I'm not saying increase taxes for the uber wealthy just perhaps not so many write offs if you make over 2MM per year.

In fact, I completely hear you. I should have said that our system is flawed and needs some attention. I like Obama on this.

[PuebloXJ]

I'd be surprised if Mitt could pull the Evangelical votes which most Republicans need. If he beat Obama I don't think it would be because of the issues.

The Evangelicals will vote for whoever wins the Republican nomination, they will never vote for the Dems.

[Gags]

That's BS.

The wealthy pay more taxes than anyone. THAT is unfair.

Do they pay a higher percentage or is it that the amount of dollars are greater?

[Gags]

Twice, in many cases. :mad:

Both as shareholders and again as consumers.

I LOVE paying twice.

[Steve]

Sorry, my point is that the tax system needs attention. I'm not saying increase taxes for the uber wealthy just perhaps not so many write offs if you make over 2MM per year.

If you get rid of "writeoffs" you increase taxes. You're making no sense now. :shrug:

The "rich," any way you want to define them, already pay a hugely disproportionate share of taxes compared to any other group. The only real fair way is to have everyone, regardless of income, pay the same %. We're so far from that now that it's not even funny.

[PuebloXJ]

Sorry, my point is that the tax system needs attention. I'm not saying increase taxes for the uber wealthy just perhaps not so many write offs if you make over 2MM per year.

In fact, I completely hear you. I should have said that our system is flawed and needs some attention. I like Obama on this.

:tisk: Dems. always raise taxes on everyone and then give it to the ones that don't contrubite to the system. Having said that I want to make it clear that there are people who need help and should get it, but not everyone getting help from the Government has earned or needs it.

[Gags]

If you get rid of "writeoffs" you increase taxes. You're making no sense now. :shrug:

The "rich," any way you want to define them, already pay a hugely disproportionate share of taxes compared to any other group. The only real fair way is to have everyone, regardless of income, pay the same %. We're so far from that now that it's not even funny.

F@ck...

I withdraw the comments on rich vs. middleclass taxes.

I stand by the opinion that the system is flawed.

[Steve]

Do they pay a higher percentage or is it that the amount of dollars are greater?

They pay a MUCH higher % of their income. Income taxes are progressive to ensure that. And with the AMT you can't get out of paying any income tax regardless of what your income is. The days of the "rich" getting out of paying any income tax ended many years ago. That was the sole purpose of the AMT.

Do a quick Google search and enlighten yourself.

[jnschwie]

Do they pay a higher percentage or is it that the amount of dollars are greater?

Both.

The tax system in this country is fawked. The better off you are financially, the worse off you are from a tax standpoint (by bracket).

Why in the world do we have a disincentive to increased income? Fundamentally, it makes zero sense. That's why taxes make me so furious, and why I rant about them so much on this board.

[Gags]

F@ck...

I withdraw the comments on rich vs. middleclass taxes.

I stand by the opinion that the system is flawed.

again

[jnschwie]

Here is another viewpoint:

The rich CLEARLY know what to do with their money better than the government does. They create jobs for us, donate to philanthropic causes, and create the companies that the rest of us invest in.

How do we thank them for it?

We tax them at a grossly disproportionate rate. It is absurd.

[jnschwie]

We tax them at a grossly disproportionate rate. It is absurd.

In fact, the ideal would be to tax in a graded style OPPOSITE of the current plan.

The poorer you are, chances are good, the MORE government resources you consume, and therefore, the more taxes you should pay on a percentage basis.

Seeing as how this will never, ever happen....I am forced to support "FairTax."

However, I even consider FairTax a total pipe dream in this country.

CLEARLY our politicians wish to eliminate the middle class.

[SUPERGILDO43]

so hillary won NH, what think you fellas?

[Steve]

so hillary won NH, what think you fellas?

So much for polls and talking heads, all of whom predicted Obama winning. :rolleyes:

[SUPERGILDO43]

this election is gonna be one crazy clusterfawk....

[Steve]

It's gonna be fun watching the fight between Obama and Clinton after today. It's gonna get ugly. :pbj:

[creepycrawler]

It's gonna be fun watching the fight between Obama and Clinton after today. It's gonna get ugly. :pbj:



Yes it is. Hopefully Billery will win out insuring a new republican president.



Even as I type that, I'm not real happy about our republican choices. Where the hell is the real conservitive choice?

[TheCopperCowboy]

Yes it is. Hopefully Billery will win out insuring a new republican president.



Even as I type that, I'm not real happy about our republican choices. Where the hell is the real conservitive choice?

McCain with a big red bow. :flipoff2:

[Budman]

she would prob end up on the back of a milk carton as our country gets kidnapped by terrioist if she were to actually beat obama and whoever makes it on the republican side im going for guliani

There is no difference in the three people listed in this post. They are all cut from the same cloth.

Obama wants middle class tax breaks and remove breaks for the super wealthy.

Obama has my support 100%.

Before you guys consider yourself middle class, and think this is going to benefit you, you should research what Obama considers middle class. I would be willing to bet that most of you who consider yourselves middle class would not fit into that catagory, and would end up paying more taxed under this system.

Do they pay a higher percentage or is it that the amount of dollars are greater?

Yes

McCain with a big red bow. :flipoff2:


I don't know about that...

[OrangeCrush]

The problem is that there is a Robin Hood mentality in our country where taxes are considered, I would love to see a tax system that can capture the "under the table" money that is paid through out our country. Such as a national sales tax or the like.

Our current tax system punishes people for success and rewards mediocrity.

[JKTODD]

Well Billary pulled it out last night. I guess crying will always help your cause.:rolleyes:

[Camp]

Well Billary pulled it out last night. I guess crying will always help your cause.:rolleyes:


There's no crying in baseball!

Seriously, what do you guys think this country would look like if at every UN meeting, when the president didn't get this/her way or someone called them a name, our president started sobbing and crying like a little girl? If you think people hate us now, then they would hate us and also NOT respect us. At least now, most of them fear our power if they piss us off. :shrug:

[JKTODD]

Seriously, what do you guys think this country would look like if at every UN meeting, when the president didn't get this/her way or someone called them a name, our president started sobbing and crying like a little girl? If you think people hate us now, then they would hate us and also NOT respect us. At least now, most of them fear our power if they piss us off. :shrug:

I'm sure that the Islamic countries would respect us. :laughing:

[Waifer2112]

Do you really, honestly, believe that the "middle class" gets "screwed" on taxes and the "rich" "get a pass?" Wow. Look up stats about how much of the total federal tax burden the highest earners pay v. the middle class or the poor. It's so skewed already that the top 10% of incomes pay more than 50% of the taxes.

Anything you do to further reduce taxes on the middle class and increase them on the rich is doing exactly what you say you don't want; taking from the rich to give to the poor.

And surely you know that taxes on corporations are taxes on all of us. The companies don't pay them, we do.

Hey Steve, I've seen these same figures before. that the rich pay 50% of the total taxes collected. But wouldn't a percentage of what you (since you're obviously one of the "super rich", LOL) earn vs. what you paid be more apropo? did I phrase this question intelligently?

[Steve]

Hey Steve, I've seen these same figures before. that the rich pay 50% of the total taxes collected. But wouldn't a percentage of what you (since you're obviously one of the "super rich", LOL) earn vs. what you paid be more apropo? did I phrase this question intelligently?

I understand what you're asking. We're not among the "super rich" (we could only wish :) ) but yeah, we both have good incomes.

Since we do have a good income and also have no dependents at home any more I can tell you from personal experience that the tax system is not at all friendly to a married couple with a good income and no dependents. Last year we paid over 25% of our combined gross income in federal income tax alone. The less you make the lower the tax rate that's applied to your income. If you're in the middle or lower middle class, and even if you file the short form, you don't pay nearly 25% of your gross income.

We still itemize deductions, but most of the loopholes for the "rich" that used to be in place are long gone. Combine that with the AMT, and the "rich" haven't had a free ride for a long time. If you itemize your income down a bunch, the AMT kicks in anyway, so "loopholes," and even deductions over a certain amount are useless. The tax on capital gains is much lower, but when you're talking income tax, the "rich" pretty much get it stuck to them nowadays.

I don't expect everyone to believe me, and I really couldn't care less. I just get way tired of the rhetoric about "the rich not paying their fair share." It just ain't true. :shrug:

[Yota]

"Fair Tax" is a non-starter.

First, it ain't fair. He had some scheme to keep the "poor" from paying. That's a "progressive" tax, yo, and that is not fair at all.

Second, it would never pass in a million years.

Third, if it did pass it would destroy our economy almost immediately. Are you kidding me? A 30% tax?! Plus whatever state and local taxes there may be you're looking at a 38% to 45% sales tax!! Look, a consumption tax is fine in theory but in this case it would immediately cripple our economy.

I think the fact that Huckabee is forced to push a 30% sales tax just to maintain the existing size of government should illustrate to all of us that government has grown way too big.

One thing I know is that when you tax something people and businesses do less of it. So sales and businesses would immediately begin going offshore and people would immediately begin buying from them even if it's on a black market. The government would have an incredibly more difficult job enforcing sales tax laws under the sales tax model.

Fourth, kiss foreign purchases of American products good-bye. Why the hell should they purchase from us when we have a 40% hickey on top of everything?

Fifth, The notion that Huckabee would be able to just "get rid of the IRS" and not replace it with some other organization to monitor, account for, and ensure compliance with, the new sales tax is ludicrous.

The Fair Tax would fawk this country almost as bad as any Democrat plan would once we get past stage one.

Now let's talk about the simple idea of reducing marginal tax rates - preferably even flattening them. That would cause a boom like no other.

[Yota]

Hey Steve, I've seen these same figures before. that the rich pay 50% of the total taxes collected. But wouldn't a percentage of what you (since you're obviously one of the "super rich", LOL) earn vs. what you paid be more apropo? did I phrase this question intelligently?

The class hatred that Democrats foment is pathetic EDIT: no, I have to include some Repubs in this too. They talk about the "rich" but the "rich" are the most productive people in our society. Why in hell should they want to penalize those people? The graduated tax rates actually make working harder less attractive. If you know that you could do a little more and earn a little more money but that any additional money you earned is going to be taxed at, say, 38% instead of 30% (and this is low by historical comparison - the top marginal tax rate has been as high as 90%!!) you just have that much less incentive to bother - or that much more incentive to bother in some other country.

The "top 5%" includes 6 million people whose individual AGI is greater than $101K. So many people on this board would be considered "rich" by many of the current crop of politicos.

That's not that "rich." And they definitely do pay their fair share - far more than their fair share. When politicians speak of the rights of minorities they are always talking about racial minorities. But what about the rights of the producers in this country? Those who, very often, employ others? They are a minority too and yet no one talks about them. They are literally being robbed and having their hard-earned income redistributed to the least-productive among us. That is an economically flawed policy.

[vb]

untill fdr that redistrubution was concidered to be illegal and unconstitutional. id like to see us revert back to that.:thumbsup: good points yota

[Steve]

Just read in an article on CNN.com that the lady who asked the question that made Billary cry voted for Obama. :lmao:

[JKTODD]

You know what though? Even though I will not vote for Hillary-or Obama for that matter-I have to admire her a little for sticking this thing out. I mean she's been preparing for this for longer than Bill probably even considered running. She's perserveered through the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal. She's managed to get elected in New York. And even though she's the butt of about every joke circulating right now she continues to plug along wanting to be president. It's almost too bad since her nomination (if she got it) would be the best thing that could happen for the republicans.

[Yota]

Back on the tax thing. There are few countries in this world with true laissez-faire economic policies coupled with low personal, corporate and VAT taxes.

But here is a great example (and one that Milton Friedman pointed to as well): Hong Kong.

Corporate Tax Rate: 16% flat
Individual Tax Rate: 16% flat
Value-Added Tax (VAT, similar to sales tax): 0%
Government Intervention in Free Market: famously minimal

And I can say without hesitation that Hong Kong had nearly the strongest economy in the world with some of the least natural resources in the world. The island of Hong Kong is only about 400 sq miles yet it supports millions upon millions of people in a thriving economy (kudos to Red China for leaving that mostly alone and actually learning from it).

A low, flat tax rate makes the economy boom. It makes rich people richer but it also makes poor people richer - and often makes poor people flat out rich. It can do this because it gives everyone the incentives and opportunities to pursue their own economic self-interest. When everyone is looking for a win-win, the whole society is better off.

[vb]

while we're at it can we go back to where competitive business and fewer monopolies? lets get the insurance companies out of bed with the politicians and make them earn their money. same with comunication and some others. lets get those types of lobies out of business.


yota for pres!:beer:

[Yota]

I don't see the monopolies. Also, McCain-Feingold put severe restrictions on what businesses can donate to candidates - almost nothing (and it also severely restricted free speech in the process, but that's another story).

I think McCain-Feingold has also led to this populist bilge that nearly all the candidates on both sides of the aisle are spewing. It's all about who can screw the rich or screw "big companies" more. Even some of the Republicans, in varying degrees with McCain and Huck at the top and Paul, Romney and Thompson at the bottom, have joined the chorus.

If we want jobs and a growing economy (and we do), we should do whatever we can to encourage people and businesses to GET RICH! Because they're not getting rich by screwing people, they're getting rich by providing what people demand. That benefits all involved. One thing that makes everyone relatively more miserable is income-stealing which makes the productive less so and keeps the poor right where they are.

These politicians are pandering in degrees never seen before. They are trying to appeal to the mass of less intelligent people with slogans and junk policies that will ultimately hurt all of us. Only a couple candidates have had the balls (that excludes Hill-Dog but not because she lacks a set) to present the hard truth to people. I think Fred Thompson has been the most strictly correct, followed by Romney.

[jnschwie]

"Fair Tax" is a non-starter.

First, it ain't fair. He had some scheme to keep the "poor" from paying. That's a "progressive" tax, yo, and that is not fair at all.


As you know, I've been pipe dreaming about a consumption based tax forever. While I'm not wild about all the details of FairTax (or a flat tax), they're both WAY, WAY better than what we have now and I could EASILY live with it.



Second, it would never pass in a million years.


I agree, but I still pipe dream.


Third, if it did pass it would destroy our economy almost immediately. Are you kidding me? A 30% tax?! Plus whatever state and local taxes there may be you're looking at a 38% to 45% sales tax!! Look, a consumption tax is fine in theory but in this case it would immediately cripple our economy.


That is making the assumption it was "immediately" instituted without some sort of warning or adjustment to w2 withholdings. Your paragraph leads me to believe you are overlooking the fact that you'd have 30% (or 38-45%) MORE MONEY in each paycheck.

Actually, it should be more based on your point below about big government since we're wasteful, that is a pipe dream for another day.



I think the fact that Huckabee is forced to push a 30% sales tax just to maintain the existing size of government should illustrate to all of us that government has grown way too big.

Yes


One thing I know is that when you tax something people and businesses do less of it. So sales and businesses would immediately begin going offshore and people would immediately begin buying from them even if it's on a black market. The government would have an incredibly more difficult job enforcing sales tax laws under the sales tax model.


No. Review:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_thumbnail

Well, yes, to your first sentence, but no to the idea. You're not taxing something more, you're taxing something differently. Hold that thought...


Fourth, kiss foreign purchases of American products good-bye. Why the hell should they purchase from us when we have a 40% hickey on top of everything?


See above.
Imports are "fairtaxed" and therefore get NO advantage. I do not seem to find any indications exports are "fairtaxed" upon export. Why would they be? The point is to tax US citizens, not world citizens.


Fifth, The notion that Huckabee would be able to just "get rid of the IRS" and not replace it with some other organization to monitor, account for, and ensure compliance with, the new sales tax is ludicrous.


I agree.


The Fair Tax would fawk this country almost as bad as any Democrat plan would once we get past stage one.


No.


Now let's talk about the simple idea of reducing marginal tax rates - preferably even flattening them. That would cause a boom like no other.

That's fine too.

[jnschwie]

A low, flat tax rate makes the economy boom. It makes rich people richer but it also makes poor people richer - and often makes poor people flat out rich. It can do this because it gives everyone the incentives and opportunities to pursue their own economic self-interest. When everyone is looking for a win-win, the whole society is better off.

Better than that is his idea of negative income taxes if we MUST save the poor.

Give them cash, NOT healthcare. If they want healthcare, they can prioritize. If not, that's fine. Read a book, buy some land, fawk spinning rims.

[jnschwie]

That is making the assumption it was "immediately" instituted without some sort of warning or adjustment to w2 withholdings. Your paragraph leads me to believe you are overlooking the fact that you'd have 30% (or 38-45%) MORE MONEY in each paycheck.


See above.
Imports are "fairtaxed" and therefore get NO advantage. I do not seem to find any indications exports are "fairtaxed" upon export. Why would they be? The point is to tax US citizens, not world citizens.


The other thing I wanted to mention is that instituted correctly, cost of good should actually go DOWN by a significant percentage by removing corporate taxes. You'd have MORE buying power overall.

The increased sales tax would be signficant, and the decrease in cost of goods not quite as significant. But you'd have a TON more money in your pocket.

Furthermore, since (if I understand FairTax correctly) you are paying for crap like Social Security and Medicare COMPLETELY through sales taxes, it should make US corporations MORE competitive in hiring, since they are not contributing and are now selling goods at a lower price.

[Yota]

I think Dick Morris is wrong about her playing the "race" card just as he (and lots of others) was wrong about Hillary's inevitability as the Dem nominee.

I don't really think there is a "race card" to be played anyway. In fact, the race card is more likely to be played by Obama's surrogates if he starts losing. I mean what form would Hillary's 'race card' take? I just don't see it. If anyone has failed to understand that Obama is black that person is too stupid to be able to figure out how to vote anyway. :)



.

Quoting myself is a sure sign of insanity, but I give you:

Obama playing the race card (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html).

Amazing. Oh and does anyone else see the utter racism in the old saw about Bill Clinton being the "first black president?" Democrats would even take the title of first black president away from actuall black people. :rolleyes: That was such racist crap then but the Democrats didn't care. What if they said it now?! Ohhhhh that would not fly, would it? It would stand out as overtly racist now that there is a REAL black candidate for president. Democrat double standards as usual.

This is me just laughing at Hillary getting caught in her own party's hyper-PC web: :lmao:

[Steve]

Democrats would even take the title of first black president away from actuall black people. :rolleyes:

Of course they would. They'd claim to be the first extraterrestrial candidate if that got 'em elected. It's all about pandering & lying to get elected and stay in office. :shrug:

Of course, Republicans would do the same things for the same reasons.

[SUPERGILDO43]

Oh and does anyone else see the utter racism in the old saw about Bill Clinton being the "first black president?"


If bill clinton isnt black then WHAT IS HE?!?!?!





















:D

[Yota]

Republicans will pander, and some are pandering now but not using race or gender even class warfare or anything like what the Dems are doing. But that claim about Clinton being the first black president struck me as incredibly racist and actually demeaning to black people.

[Steve]

But that claim about Clinton being the first black president struck me as incredibly racist and actually demeaning to black people.

Remember that it wasn't a Clinton who made that claim the first time. It was Toni Morrison, a black author, who first said it in 1998.

[Waifer2112]

IIRC it was blacks who dubbed him that back during his presidency.

NOt that I really care...

Steve's quicker than I!

[Yota]

Remember that it wasn't a Clinton who made that claim the first time. It was Toni Morrison, a black author, who first said it in 1998.

I know. And it's still an incredibly racist and demeaning comment.

And my point now is how readily that statement was repeated back then but how utterly out of place and arrogant it sounds now, when we see a real black candidate running.

[Steve]

In 1998, Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison called Clinton "the first Black president," saying "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas," and comparing Clinton's sex life, scrutinized despite his career accomplishments, to the stereotyping and double standards that blacks typically endure.

So, demeaning? Maybe. Racist? Not IMO. I think that word is thrown around way too much.

The description above doesn't at all fit Obama, so I guess he's not black, at least according to a Nobel Prize-winning black author. :spit:

[Yota]

In 1998, Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison called Clinton "the first Black president," saying "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas," and comparing Clinton's sex life, scrutinized despite his career accomplishments, to the stereotyping and double standards that blacks typically endure.

So, demeaning? Maybe. Racist? Not IMO. I think that word is thrown around way too much.

The description above doesn't at all fit Obama, so I guess he's not black, at least according to a Nobel Prize-winning black author. :spit:

He just stereo-typed blacks as "single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas." I defy any white person to say that about any black person and not get his head bashed in by the likes of Sharpton.

But is it racist? Well that requires a careful definition of racism. But if calling a white man "black" because he displays some characteristics that one guy thinks are "tropes of blackness" isn't racist by the current usage of the word then there really is a double standard - in reverse.

It is, however, definitely very condescending and patronizing to black people. It would make headlines today if someone in the Clinton campaign - even if it were a black person which "makes it OK" - reminded people that she is, after all, the wife of the first black president. The whole damn world would come unglued because the notion that Clinton was the first black president implies that black people are still dependent on white people to the point that a white guy can even steal the "blackness" from actual black people.

Ridiculous. But such is the screwed up world of political correctness.

[Steve]

He just...I defy any white person to say that about any black person and not get his head bashed in by the likes of Sharpton.

It's a she, but yes, there is without a doubt a double standard. According to many (especially race-baiters like Sharpton) white-on-black racism is rampant, but black-on-white racism is impossible and doesn't exist.

Ridiculous. But such is the screwed up world of political correctness.

Of course it's ridiculous.

[Yota]

Duly noted. It didn't even know who said that phrase initially because it didn't really matter. I heard it bandied about so many times by so many people.

But notice something? No one's saying that today because calling WJ Clinton "black" when there is a real black man in the running would expose that statement for the patronizing bilge it always was.

[89minitruck]

It's gonna be fun watching the fight between Obama and Clinton after today. It's gonna get ugly. :pbj:

For sure...

I see McCain and Huckabee as the winning ticket. I just don't see America electing a woman or a black man. Just my two cents...


blah, blah, steve makes lots of money... sweet.

I just get way tired of the rhetoric about "the rich not paying their fair share." It just ain't true. :shrug:

x2

[CLYDE]

I can see it, its just like anything else, it has to be the right woman, or black man. Colin Powell could have won it had he run, and been a spoiler for bush, last time around. Condoleeza rice is black, and a woman, and I can see her possibly winning it, but hillary?? I dont think so, way to much baggage. Im not sure abut Obama.

[creepycrawler]

Hillery is a nappy headed ho.

[PuebloXJ]

[QUOTE=89minitruck;971677]For sure...

I see McCain and Huckabee as the winning ticket.



That's REALLY SCARY DUDE!!!!

[Yota]

I don't. I think real conservatives will rise up and select Mitt Romney. He's just too good a person, too sincere, too credible as a conservative to deny.

And what's more, he would mop the floor with Hillary or Obama. He'd make them both look like uppity school children.